Sweden's unhappy individualists

[Phlegethon]

Dagens Nyheter - Sweden

Sweden's unhappy individualists (http://www.dn.se/opinion/signerat/modernitet-axel-hagerstrom-gjorde-svenskarna-till-narcissister-1.923867)

According to the World Value Survey, no country in the world is as secularised as Sweden. Nowhere else is self-fulfilment so highly valued, and nowhere else do values like family, nation and faith play such a small role. But an individualistic lifestyle is no recipe for happiness, writes the daily Dagens Nyheter: "Parallel to the development of material prosperity, the Swedes have turned inward. The old ambitions of studying to become an engineer, working hard, saving money, caring for others and being politically active are now associated with too many sacrifices. Instead the solitary ego has taken centre stage, and people's attitude to society has shifted from production to consumption. That has not made us any happier. Or is it a coincidence that so many people suffer from depression and mental disorders in the country where 'self-fulfilment' is the most appreciated? ... The fact is that even a true individualist needs something he can fight for - other than himself." (04/08/2009)

[Brännvin]

Consumerism yes it is extremely destructive and is destroyed Swedish society.

By the way, what is wrong with unhappy? :confused:

Anyway, happy people generally are boring, and those who actually laugh out aloud are the scum of humanity, introverse people make the world go round.

[anonymaus]

Individualists in a country strangling itself with mutual enslavement? What fool writes this shit?

[Brännvin]

Individualists in a country strangling itself with mutual enslavement? What fool writes this shit?

Well, I live here and I can say that much of his article is true. Like you it or not.

[anonymaus]

Well, I live here and I can say that much of his article is true. Like you it or not.

You might agree with the thrust of some parts of it, but it's self-contradictory. Swedes may be said to be individualistic as a culture, but they're all working for one another: social security, health care, welfare; need I even mention the extremely high rate of collectivization of workers?

The article is taking a shit on consumerism which is a fine thing to do on its own merits; what isn't fine is mixing categories and claiming that egoism is what's destroying Sweden, when the whole apparatus of Swedish society is collectivist.

[Loki]

You might agree with the thrust of some parts of it, but it's self-contradictory. Swedes may be said to be individualistic as a culture, but they're all working for one another: social security, health care, welfare; need I even mention the extremely high rate of collectivization of workers?

The article is taking a shit on consumerism which is a fine thing to do on its own merits; what isn't fine is mixing categories and claiming that egoism is what's destroying Sweden, when the whole apparatus of Swedish society is collectivist.

It's easy to sit in Canada and theorize from your armchair, though. North American stereotypes about European nations are often far out of touch with reality.

[anonymaus]

It's easy to sit in Canada and theorize from your armchair, though. North American stereotypes about European nations are often far out of touch with reality.

Are you saying I'm wrong or theorizing that I could, hypothetically, in some situation, be wrong? And in what way?

[Loki]

Are you saying I'm wrong or theorizing that I could, hypothetically, in some situation, be wrong? And in what way?

One does not need to theorize that you could hypothetically be wrong, that's an idiotic line of thinking. I'm saying you're wrong, pure and simple. Have you ever been in Sweden yourself?

[Æmeric]

Plenty of people who have never been to America sit in their armchairs & theorize about us & our country. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong. It's possible for people to make correct assumptions about other nations without having sit foot in them. And to make incorrect assumptions about countries they have actually visited. For example I've never been to Haiti or Cuba but I can assume neither is a nice place to live by the fact that the natives of those countries risks their lives to get to Florida. Cuba allegedly has a great free public healthcare system but where are the flood of immigrants flooding into Cuba to take advantage of it? Just an assumption on my part from my armchair in America.:coffee:

[anonymaus]

One does not need to theorize that you could hypothetically be wrong, that's an idiotic line of thinking. I'm saying you're wrong, pure and simple. Have you ever been in Sweden yourself?

No, I haven't. Do I have to go to the moon to know it isn't made of cheese?

In point of fact, I'm arguing specifically about the author's piss-poor writing: his attempt to smear a philosophical concept across economics, as it is convenient to the point he otherwise could not make at this time.

What am I wrong about?

[Loki]

No, I haven't. Do I have to go to the moon to know it isn't made of cheese?


No, but you have to go to the moon in order to know what it feels like to moonwalk, and what the moon dust feels like crunching under your boots in low gravity. One can approximate a simulation down here, but you'll never know exactly what it feels like until you're doing it yourself on the moon.

My travels throughout Europe have done much to open my eyes and dispel stereotypical ideas I had about these nations. In the same way, I am very sure that a trip to North America would open my eyes to wonderful new revelations about the continent.

Here is Exhibit A (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=77980&postcount=4) -- which already should give you a hint.



In point of fact, I'm arguing specifically about the author's piss-poor writing: his attempt to smear a philosophical concept across economics, as it is convenient to the point he otherwise could not make at this time.

What am I wrong about?

You actually seem to be saying that Sweden doesn't have individualistic people -- is the individualistic Swede an oxymoron? What evidence do you have to support this claim? And don't say it's the socialist governmental system. You're comparing apples and pears.

[Aemma]

Consumerism yes it is extremely destructive and is destroyed Swedish society.

By the way, what is wrong with unhappy? :confused:

Anyway, happy people generally are boring, and those who actually laugh out aloud are the scum of humanity, introverse people make the world go round.

Wow! Thanks for calling me "the scum of humanity" there Brannvin/Balder. Much appreciated. :thumb001: Yes I can see how somebody who likes to laugh out loud is a real menace to society, a veritable plague upon it actually. The world and life in general is no laughing matter of course, why everybody knows that and for shame that anybody should find the least little bit of pleasure and worse *gasp* humour in it! No, I daresay, such people deserve nothing but to be called the scum of humanity, pariah that they are. :rolleyes:

I don't know Brannvin, stay morose and depressed and delusional that "introverted people make the world go 'round". (Your use of the term "introverted" is completely wrong by the way.) I'll stick with my own folk's joie de vivre. It makes for a much more enjoyable life.

[anonymaus]

My travels throughout Europe have done much to open my eyes and dispel stereotypical ideas I had about these nations.

In the same way, I am very sure that a trip to North America would open my eyes to wonderful new revelations about the continent.

I'm not familiar with many European stereotypes of NA, but most of the ones I know are actually pretty fair. Doesn't mean there is nothing to gain by visiting, but I reckon it depends on the people you meet. This provides you with a different perspective shaped by your individual experience in your travels.

Your individual experience in traveling, Balder's experience living in Sweden, mine from the outside each have advantages and disadvantages: none of which are very relevant to what I'm discussing.


You actually seem to be saying that Sweden doesn't have individualistic people -- is the individualistic Swede an oxymoron? What evidence do you have to support this claim? And don't say it's the socialist governmental system. You're comparing apples and pears.

I am in fact saying that individualism in Sweden is something of an oxymoron, yes. That doesn't mean people don't desire it, or that they live their daily lives like North Koreans who take breaks to worship the state, but that it is ultimately impossible under their recent model of government and its convolved system of mutual enslavement.

Swedes in their totality may even be inherently individualistic, but until their individual rights are respected it isn't proper to refer to them this way; certainly, it isn't proper to pretend their radical individualistic behaviour is somehow destroying their country. Moreover, one shouldn't confuse the attitude of "I'll do what I want at others' expense" with individualism.

Directly to my point is the author's complete philosophical ignorance:


The old ambitions of studying to become an engineer, working hard, saving money, caring for others and being politically active are now associated with too many sacrifices.

...

...is it a coincidence that so many people suffer from depression and mental disorders in the country where 'self-fulfilment' is the most appreciated?

To sacrifice is to give up the good for the evil: if, as the author says, Swedes consider success, wealth and empathy to be sacrifices then it is their values that are wrong to begin with. They prize "blank" over the aforementioned values which are generally recognized as good. Were it the case that Swedes valued these things, they would indeed be pursuing self-fulfillment--they would be pursuing their rational happiness, instead of the whim-worship the author contradictorily suggests.

If the first part of that quotation is true, then Swedes are more like children than individuals. He insinuates that the country is overrun by juveniles who seek only to satisfy their range-of-the-moment desires or whims; he then refers to this as self-fulfillment which is ludicrous.

The article is so bad that it's difficult to see a serious person drawing any reliable data from it. The only conclusion we could safely draw is that the author is a fool.

[Brännvin]

Wow! Thanks for calling me "the scum of humanity" there Brannvin/Balder. Much appreciated. :thumb001: Yes I can see how somebody who likes to laugh out loud is a real menace to society, a veritable plague upon it actually. The world and life in general is no laughing matter of course, why everybody knows that and for shame that anybody should find the least little bit of pleasure and worse *gasp* humour in it! No, I daresay, such people deserve nothing but to be called the scum of humanity, pariah that they are. :rolleyes:

I don't know Brannvin, stay morose and depressed and delusional that "introverted people make the world go 'round". (Your use of the term "introverted" is completely wrong by the way.) I'll stick with my own folk's joie de vivre. It makes for a much more enjoyable life.


Sorry, I was joking in a sarcastic way about how he generalizes the word "happiness", I agree with the author but I disagree when he says that the Swedish society has become less happy with the excessive consumerism, when in fact happiness is purely subjective.

The true is that the excessive consumerism and materialism are destroying the whole Swedish society and its identity, people are became narcissist throne where don't care about their ethnicity, culture, history anymore only about their own lives and artificial "happiness" provided by our modern way of life.

[Brännvin]

You might agree with the thrust of some parts of it, but it's self-contradictory.

Did you actually read the whole article or just the part that the OP selected and translated?

Not the article is not, the only thing I disagree it was he had made the "concept of happiness" in something objective when in fact it is subjective, the rest of the article is purely correct, he expressed the feelings of many Swedes on now days independent of political and social condition.



Swedes may be said to be individualistic as a culture, but they're all working for one another: social security, health care, welfare; need I even mention the extremely high rate of collectivization of workers?

Are you about it?

Based on what did you get this conclusion “extremely high rate of collectivization of workers”?

We are living here in Sweden in 2009, not in 60's anymore in Social Democratic dream land. Please, be careful with what you speak of a place where you're just based on stereotypes.

Neo liberalism has become routine here since the 90's with the Social Democratic government led by Göran Persson when our country became an EU member, adopting in different degrees the same economic and social policy in all member countries of the bloc.

By the way, what is wrong with social security, health care, welfare?


The article is taking a shit on consumerism which is a fine thing to do on its own merits; what isn't fine is mixing categories and claiming that egoism is what's destroying Sweden, when the whole apparatus of Swedish society is collectivist.

Two questions;

Where did he speak only about consumerism on whole article?

Since the Swedish society and its ethnogenesis was collectivist?

Can lecture me about it!

[Aemma]

Sorry, I was joking in a sarcastic way about how he generalizes the word "happiness", I agree with the author but I disagree when he says that the Swedish society has become less happy with the excessive consumerism, when in fact happiness is purely subjective.

The true is that the excessive consumerism and materialism are destroying the whole Swedish society and its identity, people are became narcissist throne where don't care about their ethnicity, culture, history anymore only about their own lives and artificial "happiness" provided by our modern way of life.

Well you could have saved me the trouble and said all of this to begin with, eh? :D

[anonymaus]

I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're saying and much of what I understand seems to be suited to a separate discussion on the merits of your opinions.


Did you actually read the whole article or just the part that the OP selected and translated?

I no more read it in Swedish than I expect you to engage in a lengthy debate with me in English.


the rest of the article is purely correct, he expressed the feelings of many Swedes on now days independent of political and social condition.

Expressing sentiment is not the same as making a factual statement.


Based on what did you get this conclusion “extremely high rate of collectivization of workers”?

The data comes directly from Landsorganisationen I Sverige (http://www.lo.se/home/lo/home.nsf/unidView/F07592E7FE108359C125717E0041B706/$file/Rate_of_%20unionization.2006.pdt.pdf).


Two questions;

Where did he speak only about consumerism on whole article?

Since the Swedish society and its ethnogenesis was collectivist?

Can lecture me about it!

I accepted the implication of it as an attack on consumerism from your statement, as I thought it was a fair way of describing the thrust of what I read. It's a common tactic to attach consumerism or a consumption-based epithet to "individualism".

I was not speaking about ethnogenesis at all, but about the apparatus itself: governmental structure and its interference with people from cradle to grave.

My purpose isn't to debate the merits of individualism, collectivism, unionization of workers or the welfare state.

[Phlegethon]

For example I've never been to Haiti or Cuba but I can assume neither is a nice place to live by the fact that the natives of those countries risks their lives to get to Florida.

I'd rather die in Cuba than live in Florida. Those Cubans you have in Florida are those of the Bacardi mafia, former sycophants of the old Batista system and worthless and criminal riffraff.

And Haiti as a country is beautiful, it shares an island with the Dominican Republic after all, a favorite place for yankees to travel to.

[Brännvin]

I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're saying and much of what I understand seems to be suited to a separate discussion on the merits of your opinions.

And what are its merits for lecture me about my country?




I no more read it in Swedish than I expect you to engage in a lengthy debate with me in English.

Debate?

Well, you was who started with stereotypes about my country here, just notice your first post attacking an article when you didn't even read or understood since some comments that the author made only someone living the currently politic and social reality of Sweden it would understand or disagree.




Expressing sentiment is not the same as making a factual statement.

Who would know more about Sweden currently? The author of article or you?


In my opinion and of many who read the article he not only expressed a current national feeling yes he made a factual statement too.

Presently, I would take seriously a factual statement about my country of some dumbfound 16 girl from Stockholm or maybe from an old blunt fisherman of some small village in Öland than from you.

Just for a fact that they are indigenous Swedes living the reality (good or bad) of this country while you, no.




The data comes directly from Landsorganisationen I Sverige (http://www.lo.se/home/lo/home.nsf/unidView/F07592E7FE108359C125717E0041B706/$file/Rate_of_%20unionization.2006.pdt.pdf).

Wow great date!

Where did that source come from, do you have the Swedish version? it seems no to be an official source there then sorry the your article is not credible without any official date attached, at least in my mother tongue.




I accepted the implication of it as an attack on consumerism from your statement, as I thought it was a fair way of describing the thrust of what I read. It's a common tactic to attach consumerism or a consumption-based epithet to "individualism".

When I spoke the word ethogenesis meaning that for someone outside my ethnicity can to attack or criticize Sweden should at least understand and know its history and ethnogenesis. Something that you are a layman on.




I was not speaking about ethnogenesis at all, but about the apparatus itself: governmental structure and its interference with people from cradle to grave.

Really, you have never visited or took lived in Sweden as you said. It would not be arrogant and ignorant of you do this type of comment?




My purpose isn't to debate the merits of individualism, collectivism, unionization of workers or the welfare state.

But it was you who brought this topic here.


P.S: Sorry for bad English.

[Phlegethon]

(Your use of the term "introverted" is completely wrong by the way.)

How so?

[Brännvin]

What would be the world without the introverted people?
Still in the stone age level!

[Poltergeist]

What would be the world without the introverted people?
Still in the stone age level!

There were probably introverted people in the stone age as well.

[Phlegethon]

There were. Introverted enough to invent the wheel and learn how to make fire while the extroverted hedonists were eating mammoth spare ribs.

[Osweo]

MMmmmm, mammoth spare ribs! :yumyum:

[SweTrash]

About the Sweden's unhappy individualists thing

i found this from "Daily news" if someone is intrested:
http://www.dn.se/opinion/debatt/invandring-viktigare-for-sverige-an-barnafodande-1.525344


"immigrants are more important than childbearing"


this is frustrating when Sweden was declared as a multi culture country. with lots of problems thanks to immigrants.

one of our "greatest" politician said:

"Svenskarna måste integreras i det nya Sverige, det gamla Sverige kommer inte tillbaka. (i will translate)

The Swedish people have to migrate to the new Sweden, the old Sweden will not return"

* Mona Sahlin i P1-morgon i Sveriges Radio P1 den 17 maj 2001.


if you dont like this, you are a racist and dont respect the political rights.

why am i getting suspicious?!

[SweTrash]

"Det räcker inte att acceptera människors olikhet – vi måste gilla den."
Mona Sahlin den 3 maj 2002.

"its not enough to accept peoples differences - we have to like it"

[Brännvin]

The majority of Swedes are against immigration and are not happy (criminality, destruction of the welfare state, deterioration quality of life) but in time to vote they still choose the same parties as always, there is a plenty of reasons for it. :(

Mona Sahlin is a joke, we will got more 4 of Reinfeldt and its neoliberal gang on next year, which is not good thing there too :rolleyes2:

[SweTrash]

i wonder how media will react when it will be a civil war in Sweden.

Remember, the politicians are the peoples employees. not in the other way >:0

is there any way to resign the citizenship? i do not want to belong to the system anymore.

[SwordoftheVistula]

You might agree with the thrust of some parts of it, but it's self-contradictory. Swedes may be said to be individualistic as a culture, but they're all working for one another: social security, health care, welfare; need I even mention the extremely high rate of collectivization of workers?

The article is taking a shit on consumerism which is a fine thing to do on its own merits; what isn't fine is mixing categories and claiming that egoism is what's destroying Sweden, when the whole apparatus of Swedish society is collectivist.

They've got a different concept of 'individualism' in continental Europe which stems from the 'Romantic movement' in the mid 1800s or so. It's not like the Anglo concept of my stuff/my space/my rights, it's a more nebulous concept of 'self-actualization' etc. So, in that definition, living off of welfare while doing nothing productive could be viewed as 'individualistic', whereas we would see it as part of a collectivist system since they are living off of others in society. For example, an 'individualist' in the Anglosphere would think it's his 'right' to to publish the name of a convicted criminal in a newspaper, an 'individualist' there thinks its the criminal's 'right' not to have his name published in a newspaper, which we would view as 'collectivist' since it infringes on 'freedom of the press'.

[Groenewolf]

You might agree with the thrust of some parts of it, but it's self-contradictory. Swedes may be said to be individualistic as a culture, but they're all working for one another: social security, health care, welfare; need I even mention the extremely high rate of collectivization of workers?

That is not as paradoxal statement as it seems. By transfaring things that in the past used to be organised by the family, local community, church, ect. to an impersonal and distant bureaucracy people became less conected with each other.

[SwordoftheVistula]

That is not as paradoxal statement as it seems. By transfaring things that in the past used to be organised by the family, local community, church, ect. to an impersonal and distant bureaucracy people became less conected with each other.

Yes, that's part of the language/definitions issue. In north America, participation in family, local community, church, ect. is voluntary and therefore viewed as an 'individual choice', whereas an impersonal and distant bureaucracy in which people became less connected with each other is viewed as 'collectivist' since "bureaucracy/govt=collectivist". Most of the political fights break down to contests between the 'individualist' or 'right wing/conservative' camp which proposes that assorted social problems can best be resolved by family, local community, church, ect. and the 'progressive' or 'left wing/liberal' camp which proposes that assorted social problems can best be resolved by government intervention.

I think we can all agree that self-centered individuals who live life at involuntary expense of the rest of society are not a good thing.

[lei.talk]

The majority of Swedes are against immigration and are not happy
(criminality, destruction of the welfare state, deteriorating quality of life)

but in time to vote they still choose the same parties as always,
there are plenty of reasons for it. :(what are the reasons
for this self-destructive behavior (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=78372#post78372)?
I think we can all agree that self-centered individuals who live life at the involuntary expense of the rest of society are not a good thing.is the connection between collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism)/communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)/socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
and sense-of-entitlement/infantilisation/dependency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_personality_disorder) abstruse?

[Brännvin]

what are the reasons
for this self-destructive behavior (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=78372#post78372)?is the connection between


Self-destructive behavior? hummm... I have no idea, but the reason is the same why Germans, French, and others still vote on the same parties